Mall wrote: "Let's suppose, for sake of argument, that I had a list of 2k jockeys, headed by PVal, who rode on illegal drugs which risked the safety of other jockeys."

Why, for sake of argument, is PVal on top? It has been a long time since PVal's problems have surprised anyone. Using him defeats the purpose. (I want to add that he's my all-time favorite rider.) Think of riders at the very top, Mall. The very top. I want to see you go after them for withholding information.

"I do not see how what those on the list did or didn't do would have anything to do with the limited question I thought we were discussing, which is whether Julie's decision to continue riding after she was diagnosed with clinical depression and given powerful prescription drugs was right or wrong, good or bad."

I see what you're trying to do, and I'm not going to let you do it. What you are doing amounts to selective prosecution of Julie.

"It is only after that question is answered that it makes sense to me to discuss how good or how bad what she did was in comparison to others."

Nonsense. You're skipping history as tragedy and heading straight to history as farce. Please give me your lengthy condemnations of the sinners who came before Julie. If you look really hard, you might even find a couple of men.